Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/14/2022 1:55:34 PM EDT
|
https://ruger.com/products/sfar/models.html interesting, looks like Ruger is getting back into the 7.62 autoloader game. Lightweight, mid length DI system with a 4 position adjustable gas block, 4.5 lb trigger, and extra vents for excess gas (assume for running a can). Not crazy about the muzzle brake, but it looks easily removable. |
YouTube video with actual shooting. Failed To Load Title Looks pretty good. Accuracy seems a bit meh, though. Good news for those who suppress. With the adjustable gas block and the extra vents, it looks like there is almost no gas to the face, even though it’s a DI system. Not sure how those receiver vents, which actually go through into the barrel extension, will work for keeping dirt and debris out. I’m thinking this gun won’t do well at all in a mud test. I picked up mine today, but will probably be a while before going out to shoot it. First impression is that it’s definitely light weight. Trigger is pretty decent too. Very much closer to a good aftermarket trigger than a standard AR trigger. Not sure I’ll bother changing it out. The handguard is thin and quite close fitting to the barrel. Be interesting to see how it holds up, and thinking may need panels or VFG to deal with the heat coming from the barrel in extended firing session. |
|
Picked mine up yesterday and I am liking it more each day. I m going to try and go to the range this weekend and put some lead down range. Also going to get the mount for my suppressor on it and see how loud it is. What surprised me is how light it is. That and the trigger seems to me to be lighter than 4.5 pounds. I think I am going to keep this one low weight. Go with a 1-8 LPVO, suppressor, a bipod, and call it good. |
Picked up the 16" #5610 on Sunday. Removed the muzzle brake and used a Gen I VG6 Gamma 762; that Ruger 'Boomer' brake looks loud just sitting there.  I use the Gen I Gamma 762 on all my .308's.The Ruger trigger was decent but I added a CMC 2.5 pound single stage instead. Did a fluff and buff on the rifle and did find the receiver extension was barely catching the buffer retaining pin/spring, I was able to get another full turn on the extension, now it's securing the buffer retaining pin. The castle nut was only hand tight, that plastic QD/receiver end plate prevents you from using a proper action wrench so I replaced the plastic end plate with a BCM gunfighter QD and properly torqued the castle nut. I used a BEV block and some microfiber cloth to make up for the magazine well difference to mount the lower in a vise to torque the castle nut. It's interesting that this rifle is using a 3 ounce carbine buffer, once I've got some rounds through it I'll experiment with the gas settings and heavier buffer weights. |
|
Originally Posted By DarkStar: Picked up the 16" #5610 on Sunday. Removed the muzzle brake and used a Gen I VG6 Gamma 762; that Ruger 'Boomer' brake looks loud just sitting there. I use the Gen I Gamma 762 on all my .308's.The Ruger trigger was decent but I added a CMC 2.5 pound single stage instead. Did a fluff and buff on the rifle and did find the receiver extension was barely catching the buffer retaining pin/spring, I was able to get another full turn on the extension, now it's securing the buffer retaining pin. The castle nut was only hand tight, that plastic QD/receiver end plate prevents you from using a proper action wrench so I replaced the plastic end plate with a BCM gunfighter QD and properly torqued the castle nut. I used a BEV block and some microfiber cloth to make up for the magazine well difference to mount the lower in a vise to torque the castle nut. It's interesting that this rifle is using a 3 ounce carbine buffer, once I've got some rounds through it I'll experiment with the gas settings and heavier buffer weights. Have you ever tried the PWS ratcheting endplate/castle nut? They are excellent , still have QD point and stay tight without staking.(even with multiple removals) |
|
Originally Posted By DarkStar: The Ruger trigger was decent but I added a CMC 2.5 pound single stage instead. @DarkStar Ruger says it takes mil-spec trigger groups, is there room for a cassette trigger or any aftermarket option? |
"And I never did get my lawnmower back!" - Bandit 6
"On the bright side, the money we saved by not going to Mars in the 1970s, we spent on welfare and public schools." - @MorlockP
"On the bright side, the money we saved by not going to Mars in the 1970s, we spent on welfare and public schools." - @MorlockP
|
Originally Posted By Rubicon777: Have you ever tried the PWS ratcheting endplate/castle nut? They are excellent , still have QD point and stay tight without staking.(even with multiple removals) Originally Posted By Rubicon777: Have you ever tried the PWS ratcheting endplate/castle nut? They are excellent , still have QD point and stay tight without staking.(even with multiple removals) The SFAR uses a non-standard polymer endplate. I staked it anyway.   Originally Posted By mPisi: @DarkStar Ruger says it takes mil-spec trigger groups, is there room for a cassette trigger or any aftermarket option? It appears there is room except for packs that utilize area above the safety like the FRT. I'm curious as to the bolt material, it almost looks case hardened.  Standard extractors will NOT work. Hoping Ruger makes spare parts easy to get or the aftermarket gets ramped up. I don't like having wear parts I cannot replace in the field. At all.  Also interesting is the bore for the bolt in the carrier. The carrier appears to be melonited/nitride however the carrier bore is either chromed or bare metal with a counter bore.  Dual ejector (another part I need). 
|
| I finally found a 20" last week so I brought it home. IMHO Ruger screwed the pooch again. There's no where near enough clearance between the gas block and the handguard on these rifles which I believe is responsible for the lackluster accuracy reports. I measured the width of the channel at the top of the handguard at .440" and the width of the top of their adjustable gas block at .420". That only leaves Ten thou of clearance IF everything is perfectly aligned. With the example I brought home the gas block was actually touching on one side. This will absolutely wreck the accuracy and anyone who has seen a high speed video of a rifle barrel whipping around when it's fired will know that ten thousandths is no where near enough room for movement, especially with such a thin walled barrel. I'm currently debating whether to replace the handguard with something like a JP or replace the gas block with something like a JG opmod titanium which may give enough clearance. |
http://americanconservativeparty.org/
| I ended up swapping the handguard and the gas block with Odin works. I also found the barrel extension to be a rather loose fit in the upper so I shimmed it before putting it back together. I also swapped in an H2 buffer. Accuracy looks promising. I just took it out to some nearby BLM land and shot a couple groups mostly to check the function and adjust the gas system. Shooting prone in the wet snow with two different loads and a 5x optic it produced 1.5" groups. I expect with some more break in, some load tuning, and better conditions it will be capable of 1" or less |
http://americanconservativeparty.org/
|
There’s a 15-page thread in AR Variants about it, in case you guys are unaware: https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR-15/New-Ruger-SFAR-Small-Frame-Autoloading-rifle-/121-775813/ |
|
Originally Posted By raf: I hope the new Ruger offering works out well for all concerned. As the owner of a highly-modified DSA StG58A FAL, the new Ruger offering is not attractive to me. I'm sure other folks will differ, and more power to them. Originally Posted By raf: I hope the new Ruger offering works out well for all concerned. As the owner of a highly-modified DSA StG58A FAL, the new Ruger offering is not attractive to me. I'm sure other folks will differ, and more power to them. Originally Posted By raf: I wish every and all SFR owner/user all the best. As the owner of a DSA FAL, and that being much modified, I'm not interested in current Ruger offering. YMMV, and ALL best wishes! Weird flex, coming into a manufacturer-specific subforum not once but TWICE, to a thread about a new rifle that you haven’t even shot, to tell us how you prefer a less accurate, less optics-friendly, more expensive rifle design from the 1950s that apparently needed to be “highly modified” and uses magazines 3x the cost. 
|
|
Originally Posted By TREETOP: Weird flex, coming into a manufacturer-specific subforum not once but TWICE, to a thread about a new rifle that you haven't even shot, to tell us how you prefer a less accurate, less optics-friendly, more expensive rifle design from the 1950s that apparently needed to be "highly modified" and uses magazines 3x the cost. Originally Posted By TREETOP: Originally Posted By raf: I hope the new Ruger offering works out well for all concerned. As the owner of a highly-modified DSA StG58A FAL, the new Ruger offering is not attractive to me. I'm sure other folks will differ, and more power to them. Originally Posted By raf: I wish every and all SFR owner/user all the best. As the owner of a DSA FAL, and that being much modified, I'm not interested in current Ruger offering. YMMV, and ALL best wishes! Weird flex, coming into a manufacturer-specific subforum not once but TWICE, to a thread about a new rifle that you haven't even shot, to tell us how you prefer a less accurate, less optics-friendly, more expensive rifle design from the 1950s that apparently needed to be "highly modified" and uses magazines 3x the cost. My best wishes to all those who buy them and use them. I'm not personally willing to substitute the new Ruger product for my utterly reliable and modified FAL, nor am I willing to get rid of my SuperMatch M1A, similarly modified. I think I've defended a number of Ruger products from undue criticism over the years. My small reservations about some Ruger products should not cause undue angst. Those in a different position can make their own choices, and best of luck to them all. |
Promoted to Member by Ed, Sr.
|
Originally Posted By raf: We all have our different "takes" on things and my particular "take" is certainly not the final word on the new Ruger rifle. My best wishes to all those who buy them and use them. I'm not personally willing to substitute the new Ruger product for my utterly reliable and modified FAL, nor am I willing to get rid of my SuperMatch M1A, similarly modified. I think I've defended a number of Ruger products from undue criticism over the years. My small reservations about some Ruger products should not cause undue angst. Those in a different position can make their own choices, and best of luck to them all. Originally Posted By raf: Originally Posted By TREETOP: Originally Posted By raf: I hope the new Ruger offering works out well for all concerned. As the owner of a highly-modified DSA StG58A FAL, the new Ruger offering is not attractive to me. I'm sure other folks will differ, and more power to them. Originally Posted By raf: I wish every and all SFR owner/user all the best. As the owner of a DSA FAL, and that being much modified, I'm not interested in current Ruger offering. YMMV, and ALL best wishes! Weird flex, coming into a manufacturer-specific subforum not once but TWICE, to a thread about a new rifle that you haven't even shot, to tell us how you prefer a less accurate, less optics-friendly, more expensive rifle design from the 1950s that apparently needed to be "highly modified" and uses magazines 3x the cost. My best wishes to all those who buy them and use them. I'm not personally willing to substitute the new Ruger product for my utterly reliable and modified FAL, nor am I willing to get rid of my SuperMatch M1A, similarly modified. I think I've defended a number of Ruger products from undue criticism over the years. My small reservations about some Ruger products should not cause undue angst. Those in a different position can make their own choices, and best of luck to them all. Who's substituting? I'm just adding another one to the collection. If it proves to be reliable and accurate then maybe it will become my "go to" rifle, but until then, like you, I have a couple other proven guns in the safe. So far it hasn't given any indication that it won't be just as accurate and reliable as an M-14 or FAL, but it is definitely much lighter and a bit more compact. I can also get many replacement parts at just about any sporting goods store which I have already done. Only time will tell, but someone has to run a new gun through it's paces to find out. I see no reason to discourage anyone from doing so. |
http://americanconservativeparty.org/
|
Originally Posted By Wirebrush: Who's substituting? I'm just adding another one to the collection. If it proves to be reliable and accurate then maybe it will become my "go to" rifle, but until then, like you, I have a couple other proven guns in the safe. So far it hasn't given any indication that it won't be just as accurate and reliable as an M-14 or FAL, but it is definitely much lighter and a bit more compact. I can also get many replacement parts at just about any sporting goods store which I have already done. Only time will tell, but someone has to run a new gun through it's paces to find out. I see no reason to discourage anyone from doing so. |
Promoted to Member by Ed, Sr.
Armory Sponsor